Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Fabricated Science

MrLexa
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 8:04:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.bbc.com...

I am angry that a previously reputable scientist committed such a deliberate and destructive act of deceit.

I feel like things like this serve only to contribute to the already horrendous cynicism in the public perspective on science, and to the rise of pseudoscience. Things like this is why the public no longer value or even pretend to respect logic and scientific thought.

Please discuss.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 10:46:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 8:04:22 PM, MrLexa wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

I am angry that a previously reputable scientist committed such a deliberate and destructive act of deceit.

I feel like things like this serve only to contribute to the already horrendous cynicism in the public perspective on science, and to the rise of pseudoscience. Things like this is why the public no longer value or even pretend to respect logic and scientific thought.

Please discuss.

The manuscripts that were retracted have been under scrutiny from the day they were published. But to say its a top scientists that deceived everyone is false.

It was the first author of the manuscript "Dr Haruko Obokata" that is mostly to blame, as she was the person that inserted the duplicate images etc. She is a good scientist, but a top scientist? Actually what does a top scientist even mean?

The fact is during the peer review and author self review process there is trust that every author is telling the other authors the truth. In fact most authors are unable to (either financially or the work is not in their immediate field) to repeat every experiment. This is why you trust people to not lie.

Read the original article about the retraction e at nature, as the BBC view does no good at honestly conveying the situation.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 10:47:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 8:04:22 PM, MrLexa wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

I am angry that a previously reputable scientist committed such a deliberate and destructive act of deceit.

I feel like things like this serve only to contribute to the already horrendous cynicism in the public perspective on science, and to the rise of pseudoscience. Things like this is why the public no longer value or even pretend to respect logic and scientific thought.

Please discuss.

Also I may add that the first author of this manuscript still maintains the technique works. So in her mind she is not lying (or fabricating) which is either true or she is misled and does not understand the science.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 11:06:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 8:04:22 PM, MrLexa wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

I am angry that a previously reputable scientist committed such a deliberate and destructive act of deceit.

I feel like things like this serve only to contribute to the already horrendous cynicism in the public perspective on science, and to the rise of pseudoscience. Things like this is why the public no longer value or even pretend to respect logic and scientific thought.

Please discuss.

This is actually very good. Science has a high bar of proof before acceptance. This shows that the process overall works and scientists who are incompetent or unscrupulous have a high degree of accountability.

The other thing I want to mention is on the comment that failures like this are the reason why the public no longer values logic and science. I will agree that failures like this surely do not help, but when one looks up the quantity of quality scientific papers and progress this example not the norm because of the high level of accountability.

There are other forces at hand causing people to disregard science. Society has long shunned science and I think it is deeply rooted in culture. It starts from when kids are little to full grown adults. It would take a much longer examination to understand why, but just the fact that parents are more likely to put a kid in soccer or sports at age 4 than begin teaching them science topics, says quite a bit on its own.
MrLexa
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 8:10:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 10:46:00 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/2/2014 8:04:22 PM, MrLexa wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

I am angry that a previously reputable scientist committed such a deliberate and destructive act of deceit.

I feel like things like this serve only to contribute to the already horrendous cynicism in the public perspective on science, and to the rise of pseudoscience. Things like this is why the public no longer value or even pretend to respect logic and scientific thought.

Please discuss.

The manuscripts that were retracted have been under scrutiny from the day they were published. But to say its a top scientists that deceived everyone is false.

It was the first author of the manuscript "Dr Haruko Obokata" that is mostly to blame, as she was the person that inserted the duplicate images etc. She is a good scientist, but a top scientist? Actually what does a top scientist even mean?

I do not understand your mention of "Top scientist"? Why is this relavent or important? Who referred to her as a "Top Scientist"?

The fact is during the peer review and author self review process there is trust that every author is telling the other authors the truth. In fact most authors are unable to (either financially or the work is not in their immediate field) to repeat every experiment. This is why you trust people to not lie.

Read the original article about the retraction e at nature, as the BBC view does no good at honestly conveying the situation.

I did indeed read the original in Nature. I linked the BBC article because, and no offence to anyone, but I know only of one other DDOite besides myself I am sure would understand the jargon in it. That is whiteflame.
MrLexa
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 8:14:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 10:47:38 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/2/2014 8:04:22 PM, MrLexa wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

I am angry that a previously reputable scientist committed such a deliberate and destructive act of deceit.

I feel like things like this serve only to contribute to the already horrendous cynicism in the public perspective on science, and to the rise of pseudoscience. Things like this is why the public no longer value or even pretend to respect logic and scientific thought.

Please discuss.

Also I may add that the first author of this manuscript still maintains the technique works. So in her mind she is not lying (or fabricating) which is either true or she is misled and does not understand the science.

It was not retracted because she misled regarding the technique. It was retracted due to falsifications in data that could not, in any way, be anything besides deliberate.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 8:17:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 8:10:32 PM, MrLexa wrote:
At 7/2/2014 10:46:00 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/2/2014 8:04:22 PM, MrLexa wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

I am angry that a previously reputable scientist committed such a deliberate and destructive act of deceit.

I feel like things like this serve only to contribute to the already horrendous cynicism in the public perspective on science, and to the rise of pseudoscience. Things like this is why the public no longer value or even pretend to respect logic and scientific thought.

Please discuss.

The manuscripts that were retracted have been under scrutiny from the day they were published. But to say its a top scientists that deceived everyone is false.

It was the first author of the manuscript "Dr Haruko Obokata" that is mostly to blame, as she was the person that inserted the duplicate images etc. She is a good scientist, but a top scientist? Actually what does a top scientist even mean?

I do not understand your mention of "Top scientist"? Why is this relavent or important? Who referred to her as a "Top Scientist"?

My bad you said previously reputable scientist. The reason I bring this up is as every scientists is up for scrutiny and as retraction watch shows a lot of big names are falling prey to this. Although its not always their fault, but that they get lied to and then as they are the big gun on the paper they get smeared.

Then again as in the Dirk Smeeters case he was well aware of what he was doing.

The fact is during the peer review and author self review process there is trust that every author is telling the other authors the truth. In fact most authors are unable to (either financially or the work is not in their immediate field) to repeat every experiment. This is why you trust people to not lie.

Read the original article about the retraction e at nature, as the BBC view does no good at honestly conveying the situation.

I did indeed read the original in Nature. I linked the BBC article because, and no offence to anyone, but I know only of one other DDOite besides myself I am sure would understand the jargon in it. That is whiteflame.

I thought the editorial in Nature better encompassed the decision than the BBC blurb, that's why I bring it up. The list of what was wrong is relevant but too technical I would agree.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 8:30:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 8:14:48 PM, MrLexa wrote:
At 7/2/2014 10:47:38 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/2/2014 8:04:22 PM, MrLexa wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

I am angry that a previously reputable scientist committed such a deliberate and destructive act of deceit.

I feel like things like this serve only to contribute to the already horrendous cynicism in the public perspective on science, and to the rise of pseudoscience. Things like this is why the public no longer value or even pretend to respect logic and scientific thought.

Please discuss.

Also I may add that the first author of this manuscript still maintains the technique works. So in her mind she is not lying (or fabricating) which is either true or she is misled and does not understand the science.

It was not retracted because she misled regarding the technique. It was retracted due to falsifications in data that could not, in any way, be anything besides deliberate.

I have not read the RIKEN reports fully. However, I will say that many scientists are guilty of what she did. i.e. image editing, copying the same picture from a thesis/previous article/etc and plagiarism of methods (actually to plagiarize a methods section is pretty easy as I am sure you know, after all an experiment is pretty much done in the same way over and over again by multiple people).

In this case I would agree that it looks deliberate, but she still says its real and I am unaware of if another lab has tried to reproduce her experiments. Please realize I am not condoning, I am just saying I would like to see more independent tests and not complete dismissal. If this has any truth to it, it is of great value to stem cell research.

That's why it is good that nature is implementing more rigorous checking of these types of errors especially the image editing.
MrLexa
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 6:32:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 8:30:23 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/3/2014 8:14:48 PM, MrLexa wrote:
At 7/2/2014 10:47:38 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/2/2014 8:04:22 PM, MrLexa wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

I am angry that a previously reputable scientist committed such a deliberate and destructive act of deceit.

I feel like things like this serve only to contribute to the already horrendous cynicism in the public perspective on science, and to the rise of pseudoscience. Things like this is why the public no longer value or even pretend to respect logic and scientific thought.

Please discuss.

Also I may add that the first author of this manuscript still maintains the technique works. So in her mind she is not lying (or fabricating) which is either true or she is misled and does not understand the science.

It was not retracted because she misled regarding the technique. It was retracted due to falsifications in data that could not, in any way, be anything besides deliberate.

I have not read the RIKEN reports fully. However, I will say that many scientists are guilty of what she did. i.e. image editing, copying the same picture from a thesis/previous article/etc and plagiarism of methods (actually to plagiarize a methods section is pretty easy as I am sure you know, after all an experiment is pretty much done in the same way over and over again by multiple people).

In this case I would agree that it looks deliberate, but she still says its real and I am unaware of if another lab has tried to reproduce her experiments. Please realize I am not condoning, I am just saying I would like to see more independent tests and not complete dismissal. If this has any truth to it, it is of great value to stem cell research.

It has been tested, repeatedly, since its publication. It was the fact the the results were absolutely impossible to reproduce that made everyone take a closer look at the paper.

That's why it is good that nature is implementing more rigorous checking of these types of errors especially the image editing.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 8:49:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 6:32:50 AM, MrLexa wrote:
At 7/3/2014 8:30:23 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/3/2014 8:14:48 PM, MrLexa wrote:
At 7/2/2014 10:47:38 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 7/2/2014 8:04:22 PM, MrLexa wrote:
http://www.bbc.com...

I am angry that a previously reputable scientist committed such a deliberate and destructive act of deceit.

I feel like things like this serve only to contribute to the already horrendous cynicism in the public perspective on science, and to the rise of pseudoscience. Things like this is why the public no longer value or even pretend to respect logic and scientific thought.

Please discuss.

Also I may add that the first author of this manuscript still maintains the technique works. So in her mind she is not lying (or fabricating) which is either true or she is misled and does not understand the science.

It was not retracted because she misled regarding the technique. It was retracted due to falsifications in data that could not, in any way, be anything besides deliberate.

I have not read the RIKEN reports fully. However, I will say that many scientists are guilty of what she did. i.e. image editing, copying the same picture from a thesis/previous article/etc and plagiarism of methods (actually to plagiarize a methods section is pretty easy as I am sure you know, after all an experiment is pretty much done in the same way over and over again by multiple people).

In this case I would agree that it looks deliberate, but she still says its real and I am unaware of if another lab has tried to reproduce her experiments. Please realize I am not condoning, I am just saying I would like to see more independent tests and not complete dismissal. If this has any truth to it, it is of great value to stem cell research.

It has been tested, repeatedly, since its publication. It was the fact the the results were absolutely impossible to reproduce that made everyone take a closer look at the paper.


That's why it is good that nature is implementing more rigorous checking of these types of errors especially the image editing.

Honestly, the thing that made people take a closer look was that within a week someone had realized about the duplicated images. According to the sources I read which were published literally 2 weeks after the original paper.
http://www.peeep.us...

The talk about other groups not been able to repeat experiments I have heard, but not seen any evidence for it. All I keep hearing about is the images are tampered etc etc. I mean that is reason enough to retract so its good it happened. I just hope there is more clarity on the experiments in the future.